Really? I would think the exact opposite. After a year of dilation and delay the GAC has failed to articulate why it is “just like” any other AC (such that its internal processes should be its own business) in the face of its Bylaw-privleged ability to command the Board to negotiate. As most of us have recognized, so long as the GAC has that privileged position and has the ability to compel Board consideration in a way that other ACs do not, its internal processes do, necessarily, create an accountability issue. That’s something that the overwhelming majority of the community has recognized with only a few outliers.
For myself, I would prefer to strip the GAC of its privileged position – in which case I would be content for them to use whatever process they want. But that, alas, does not command a broad consensus either.
Cheers
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 1:42 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Rationale for Stress Test 18
On 10/17/15 9:51 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
In GAC session today, some said they did not understand why we needed Stress Test 18.
While January is quite a long time ago, even in ICANN process development time, at the time when the BC provided their scenarios to "Work Group #4" I wrote:
--
BC #6. GAC votes
The accountability issue here isn't obvious to me. The bylaws create several Advisory Councils, each of which may have distinct internal processes resulting in the issuance of advice. A change in any AC's internal process does not necessarily create an accountability issue.
I suggest this item should be discarded.
Here we are, still using our very finite time, on a scenario the better part of a year's aging has not improved.
Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon